From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Dec 17 01:04:29 1996
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id BAA09801
          for security-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:04:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.fasts.com (root@server.fasts.com [199.125.215.66])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA09791
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.fasts.com ([199.125.215.66]) by fasts.com with SMTP id <14-13305>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:04:22 +0000
Date: 	Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:04:07 +0000 ()
From: Victor Rotanov <vitjok@fasts.com>
To: Snob Art Genre <ben@narcissus.ml.org>
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sendmail...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961217005838.1244A-100000@narcissus.ml.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961217110236.16720A-100000@server.fasts.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk



On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Snob Art Genre wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Victor Rotanov wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hello.
> > 
> > Why sendmail can't be replaced with something more secure by default?
> > I'd suggest Zmailer which can be fount at 
> > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/unix/mail/zmailer
> > It is also seems to be faster than sendmail on high loads.
> 
> Oh god, don't get the religious wars going again, *please*.
why? anything is more secure than sendmail, and zmailer is used on 
highly loaded mail servers.
> 
>  Ben
> 
> The views expressed above are not those of the Worker's Compensation 
> Board of Queensland, Australia.
> 
>